Thursday, October 10, 2013

The Letter

It does me. When Quentin Tarantino (a not very intelligent man) made Reservoir Dogs, he and others compared it to the 1950 Rashomon because of how the story changed as we saw different viewpoints.

Sorry piggies, The Letter, directed by William Wyler, did this in 1940. Each time, we learn more including (SPOILER) that Bette's plantation owner character killed her lover, not a man trying to rape her.

She manages to escape criminal charges but she's killed by the man's widow (played by Gale Sondergaard).

This is one of the classic film noir movies and it twists and turns and surprises throughout. It's also one of three classics Wyler and Bette Davis made together (Jezebel and The Little Foxes were the other two). In her films with Wyler especially -- a detail C.I. pointed out to me in 2007 -- Bette does this marvelous physical movement and tension with her body that you see but don't register in a "look at that manner" -- it's just there adding to the character she's created and doing so in an unobtrusive manner.

I could watch this film for ever. Also, the DVD includes a radio broadcast that Bette did. (She's performing a radio version of the script, they're not broadcasting the film over the radio.) Just pulled the DVD. Sorry, there are two different radio plays that Bette does. Both were done for the Lux Radio Theater program -- one in 1941, the other in 1944.

I love film noir which is one reason I love this film. The other is Bette's playing the same woman but as seen by different people and it's a very complex performance. (One of her many Oscar nominations was for this film -- Wyler was also nominated for Best Director.)

Wednesday, October 9, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, Prashant Rao
missed Tim Arango's report on Nouri arming and paying Shi'ite militias
to hunt Sunnis, more corpses on the streets of Iraq, the Arab League
condemns the violence, State Dept spokesperson Marie Harf 'rewrites' the
State Dept's findings on 2006 violence, the fear mongering of the White
House is noted in a House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing, given the
chance to fight for veterans VA Secretary Eric Shinseki chooses not
to, and more.

"I really called the hearing so that we could get the best possible
information out to the veteran community," Committee Chair Jeff Miller
declared at the start of today's House Veterans Affairs Committee
hearing. Appearing before the Committee was Secretary of Veterans
Affairs Eric Shinseki. Along with the Committee members, US House Rep
Jerry McNerney (a former VA Committee member) questioned Shinseki.

Committee Chair Jeff Miller: Veterans want to know whether
they're disability checks and [G]I Bill benefits will be paid in
November and there after. They want to know if their disability claims
will be decided or further delayed. Families want to know if their
loved ones will receive a timely burial at VA national cemeteries. And
many of VA employees themselves want to know whether they'll be serving
veterans on the job or whether they will be furloughed. I understand
that answers to some of these questions are entirely dependent upon how
long this shutdown lasts. And although I want to be sure that most of
us want this shutdown over clearly, it's our responsibility that the
public especially veterans understand what the current state of play
is. First of all, Mr. Secretary, I want to say that in the last couple
of weeks getting good information about your contingency plans and the
effect of a lapse in appropriations and its effects on veterans has been
very difficult for us to get the information out of your office. For
example, the original field guide that VA put out regarding the shut
down impact at first spoke of no effect -- no effect -- on payment to
veterans or any of their benefits. But in a later version, VA stated
that a prolonged shutdown would effect both but didn't provide any
details of how it would be impacted. Second, the Veterans Health
Administration is not shut down at all because it has received a full
year's appropriation for 2014 back in March. So hospitals, clinics and
Vet Centers should all be open for business. Yet the President made a
statement the day before the shutdown saying that veterans will find
their support centers unstaffed and implied that counseling services for
veterans with PTS would be effected. Third, this Committee has been
consistently told by VBA's Overtime Mandatory Effort towards the backlog
would actually end on September 30th. Yet, days into the shutdown,
we're now informed that a shutdown prevented VBA's planned continued
payment of overtime. Fourth, although a shutdown should have a
relatively uniform effect across all regional offices, as suggested by
your own field guide, my staff met with several representatives from
VSOs last week who relayed that their members are hearing mixed messages
out of different regional offices.

There's a lot to unpack in that series of statements. First of all, it
doesn't help anyone when the President of the United States lies to the
American people in order to scare them. The VBA has the money to run
the hospitals and centers and has since March -- the money for Fiscal
Year 2014.

September 30th, in the James Brady press room, President Barack Obama declared:

Vital services that seniors and veterans, women and children, businesses
and our economy depend on would be hamstrung. Business owners would
see delays in raising capital, seeking infrastructure permits, or
rebuilding after Hurricane Sandy. Veterans who’ve sacrificed for their
country will find their support centers unstaffed.

Barack lied. Outlets carried his lies without a single question to
them. Even after the House Veterans Affairs Committee issued a fact
sheet, Barack's lies have still not been called out by the press. From the fact sheet:As President Obama stated in his Sept. 30 government shutdown
statement, will veterans find their support centers unstaffed in the
event of a shutdown?According to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
VA’s Military Sexual Trauma counseling services, Readjustment
Counseling Services and Veterans Crisis Line will not be affected by a
shutdown. Additionally, the following VA support phone lines will remain
open for business: VA National Call Center, Coaching into Care Call
Center, Debt Management Center, Homeless Prevention Line, Mammography
Helpline, National Caregiver Support Line, Women Veterans Call Center,
Vet Center Combat Call Center, Children of Women Vietnam Veterans;
Foreign Medical Program; Spina Bifida Health Care Program. Additionally,
all VA medical facilities and clinics will remain fully operational in
the event of a shutdown. As President Obama stated in his Sept. 30 government shutdown
statement, will a government shutdown keep veterans suffering from PTSD
from getting counseling services? According to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
VA’s Military Sexual Trauma counseling services, Readjustment
Counseling Services and Veterans Crisis Line will not be affected by a
shutdown. All of those services are equipped to offer veterans suffering
from PTSD with support. Additionally, all VA medical facilities and
clinics will remain fully operational in the event of a shutdown and
will be available for veterans with PTSD in need of counseling services.

Barack Obama lied to the American people (yet again) and the press
ignores it (yet again). It was fear mongering at its worst and, at
least when they were out of power, Democrats in Congress objected to
fear mongering, saw as the last resort of liars and manipulators. But
nine days ago, Barack did it and no elected Democrat has called him
out. Apparently, when you're out of power, it's very easy to have
ethics -- or at least give lectures on ethics, but when you have power,
you lose interest in ethics and ethical concerns. Well that certainly
explains the Democratic Party's war votes.

We have about 13,000 regional -- uh, benefits employees who are
doing what they always do and that's process claims as quickly and as
accurately as they can. With the end of mandatory overtime, we are
doing that at 1400 claims each day less than we were doing, uh, before
30 September.

But what Miller said, and Shinseki never contradicted, was that it was
always the understanding that overtime would be phased out at the end of
September. That was regardless of whether or not there was a
shutdown. The overtime program has been one scandal after another of
stealing taxpayer money. To quell Congressional outrage, the program
had a quick end date. For example, Mary Shinn, Daniel Moore and Steven Rich (Center for Public Integrity) reported in August:

While veterans waited longer than ever in recent years for their
wartime disability compensation, the Department of Veterans Affairs gave
its workers millions of dollars in bonuses for “excellent” performances
that effectively encouraged them to avoid claims that needed extra work
to document veterans’ injuries, a News21 investigation has found.
In 2011, a year in which the claims backlog ballooned by 155 percent,
more than two-thirds of claims processors shared $5.5 million in
bonuses, according to salary data from the Office of Personnel
Management.
The more complex claims were often set aside by workers so they could
keep their jobs, meet performance standards, or, in some cases, collect
extra pay, said VA claims processors and union representatives. Those
claims now make up much of VA’s widely scrutinized disability claims
backlog, defined by the agency as claims pending more than 125 days.

And let me point out again that there is no great reduction in backlog.
It's a con game. In many states across the country there are rental
storage facilities run by Public Storage. In New York, there is
Manhattan Mini Storage. Pretend you have a huge collection of books.
You've been tasked with going through the collection, currently stored
at Public Storage, and deciding which books to keep and which to get rid
of. Instead of doing that, making that determination, you decided to
move them to Manhattan Mini Storage. You can now claim that all the
books in Public Storage are gone. And, indeed, they are. But you
didn't do the job, you didn't make the determination. You played
kick-the-can -- a game Barack used to deride when he was a US senator
but now embraces from the White House. The 'reduction' is by giving
claims a temporary classification and sending them to another group to
be evaluated. In other words, a single-step evaluation is now a
two-step process (three if you count the temporary status).

"Since the shutdown began on One October, the backlog has stalled. and
in fact, has increased by about 2,000 claims," Shinseki insisted. "The
shutdown directly threatens VA's ability to eliminate the backlog.
We've lost ground we fought hard to take. Roughly 4,000 veterans a day
are not now receiving decisions on their disability compensation claims
due to the end of overtime." But overtime was ending September 30th
regardless. Shinseki is so dishonest.

Equally true, in the entertainment industry, we often have strikes. A
writers strike, for example, means producers not with the Writers Guild
end up doing writing (in addition to scabs and picket line crossers).
The VA has many employees on salary including Shinseki. If producers
can roll up their sleeves and write dialogue, I think in this situation,
Eric can roll up his sleeves and do some backlog work to earn that huge
salary. In fact, it would be a good idea to ask everyone in
administration with backlog cases. They might better understand the
hold ups and how to improve the process.

This is something that should have been implemented years ago. There's a
backlog. Every worker at the VA in management should know how to rate a
claim -- how else can they judge the progress. And knowing how to rate
a claim requires that management regularly do so. With just each
member of management and administration required to do one claim
evaluation a day, they'd be getting more than 4,000 done before you
included any work done by those hired to rate claims.

You'd also determine quickly whether or not the claims workers have been
working slowly for 'job protection' as many have alleged (including
some claims workers) over the last years.

Shinseki made a statement many outlets ran with -- after dressing it up
to improve it. Here's what he said, "If the shutdown does not end in
the coming weeks, VA will not be able to ensure delivery of 1 November
checks to more than 5.18 million beneficiaries."

Leo Shane III of Stars and Stripes, your job is to report not to 'improve.'
Before you whore again, here's a little tip, when the Secretary of a
Department says 5.18 million beneficiaries won't receive checks, they
got that number by lying or basic math. If they got it via basic math,
they know when the shutdown would have to end -- a date. "The coming
weeks"? Oh, no. That's not an answer. But wasn't it cute of you, Leo,
to cover for Shinseki.

Buried in his piece, Shane notes, "Shinseki could not give a precise
date when VA appropriations accounts would run out. " No, Shinseki
would not give a precise date. When you can give a figure of 5.18
million, if it's accurate (and it may be), it's accurate because you've
done a mathematic model. Equally true, the checks can all be printed on
October 30th and November 1st and sent out as they normally would
(according to two friends in VA administration). So that's 21 days.
Saying the shutdown can go on for 21 days doesn't present fear or
urgency that the White House wants and that's most likely why Shineski
dummied up on a date. (I'm also told there's the equivalent of a short
term loan process that the VA could use to cover those November 1st
checks even if the shutdown is still in effect.)

Shane also 'missed' the importance of this.

Chair Jeff Miller: So my question is in statements in years
past House and Senate regardless of parties and the White House have
always come together and tried to find a way to prioritize how much
money would be spent, who would be at the top of the list, just as we
started to shut the government down and run out of money. And today we
don't have that. Even back in the shutdown of 1995, there was a
prioritization and DoD and veterans were taken off the table which
they're not right now. So my question, Mr. Secretary, is don't you
think VA benefits should get the same priority or prioritization today
as it has in other shutdown situations?Secretary Eric Shinseki: I missed the last piece of your question, Mr. Chairman. In some --Chair Jeff Miller: Just basically, in years passed, we have in
fact prioritized spending needs -- DoD and VA has always been basically
taken off the table. And my question is: What's different this time?
And don't you think veterans benefits, in fact, should be prioritized
at a higher level than others in our government.Eric Uh, Mr. Chairman, I would just, uh, tell you this
Department has benefitted from, uh, leadership of the president and
leadership and support in the Congress. So if you look at what has
transpired over the last four years to our budgets, I think we can all
be proud of what we have done to take care of veterans and I will always
tell you that that's a top priority with me. Uh, but I do understand
that there is a budget request presented to the Congress, there is a
process that you referred to that requires a passage of the
budget within that the departments are then provided a guidance on what
their budgets will be. I'm not sure where the Congress is in that
process but I would ask the Congress, uh, to provide us a budget so that
not only this Department but our partners in government on whom we rely
to do our mission, uh, well, uh, can get on with business.

See, Leo Shane III, that was your story: "VA Secretary not willing to
fight for veterans benefits." Homeless veterans is a topic the House
and Senate Committee regularly address. When Kat
shares her thoughts on a hearing with that topic, she often notes that
there are millions of homeless people in this country who are not
veterans and it's a shame that Congress shows little to no concern for
them. Kat's correct, I don't disagree with her. But I don't bring it
up here because I expect, for example, Senator Patty Murray chairing a
Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs to make homeless veterans her first
priority among the homeless. Again, I understand Kat's reaction, I
support it, I agree with it. This country needs to address the homeless
crisis among the general population. But, again, I expect a Senate
Agricultural Committee to put farmers first and I expect that from the
Ag Secretary as well. Today, Shinseki was given the opportunity to put
veterans first and refused to. I think that's a story, I think it's
probably the most story out of the hearing (and one that will only lead
to louder cries that Shinseki needs to go).

There's much more that I would like to cover and maybe we can
tomorrow. (Though we'll be at two hearings tomorrow that I'll want to
include as well.) For the record, Leo Shane III wasn't the worst
reporter on the hearing. But he was bad and we call that out here.

Let's move over to Iraq because we also need to call out Prashant Rao of AFP.

Renee Montagne (NPR's Morning Edition -- link is text and audio) spoke with AFP's Prashant Rao today. It was, in part, to note that AFP
keeps a tally of the dead and wounded in Iraq. The tally's not
perfect. We've explained the problems with it. But we've applauded it
and did it months and months ago (the day Prashant announced it
online). AFP, repeating, deserves credit for keeping a count.
It should be noted that in past wars, it was a given that the press
kept a total of the dead. Good for AFP.
But that wasn't the problem with the interview. Here's the disgraceful section.

MONTAGNE: You mentioned the politics behind this violence.RAO: Mm-hmm.MONTAGNE:
Has there been any progress in getting Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
to stop the heavy-handed treatment that his Shiite government has doled
out to the minority Sunnis?RAO: There are some elements where
treatment of Sunnis has been improving. The government seems to be more
positive towards the use of the Sahwa, these were Sunni tribal militias
that allied with the U.S. military against al-Qaida. And the government
has always been fairly ambivalent towards them because - as you said -
it's a Shia government and they're mistrustful of these Sunni groups.
But, in recent months, there's been greater talk and there's been actual
action in terms of reestablishing some of these Sahwa militias to man
check points that carry out patrols in Sunni areas. But there's still a
great deal of criticism as to how Sunnis are treated in Iraq - a lot of
criticism of the sort of barring of Sunnis from political life. So it's
not just the sort of army cracking down, which is another allegation
that's made, that the army and the police unfairly come into Sunni
houses and target them.

Note, I'm sort of using NPR's transcript above. But I've also corrected
it. For example, Prashant Rao says "Shia government" not that Iraq has
a "Syrian government" as the transcript currently reads. We have
community members who can't stream (due to operating systems or internet
providers) and we have community members who have hearing
difficulties. So for anyone who uses the link and finds a difference
between the above and NPR's transcript, I have fixed it above to match
the actual audio.

Renee asked an important question. It's too bad Prashant was either uninformed or prepared to lie.

Sahwa? Sahwa has not been embraced nor is does Nouri al-Maliki's
"government seems to be more positive towards the use of Sahwa." With
one Iraqi outlet after another (and some Arab outlets) explaining that
the Sahwa checkpoints going up are going up because of Sunnis and that
Nouri's government -- which refused to pay them but did target them --
still won't pay them.

How is Prashant Rao unaware of that?

And what the hell is this talk of "greater talk" in "recent months"? With the Sunni protesters? No. Whose the talk with, Rao?

And if you're not lying, if you're that ignorant, you should be heading AFP's bureau.

Sunnis are targeted and this isn't my call. This is the most important
report on Iraq that's been done in 2013. How is Rao unaware of it?

We've covered it repeatedly here. In 2012, the most important Iraq news
came from a Tim Arango report. In 2013, the same is true.

The group, which is backed by Iran and split off from the Sadrist
movement several years ago and was responsible for many deadly attacks
on the American military when it was here, has seen its political wing
welcomed into the government by Mr. Maliki. And as the security forces
have proved ineffective in stemming attacks by Sunni insurgent groups,
the group’s armed unit, according to militiamen, is increasingly working
in secret with the government.

“We don’t do anything until the government asks us,” said one of the
group’s leaders, who gave his name as Abu Abdellah. “We have a direct
connection with the leaders of the security forces.”

In supporting Asaib al-Haq, Mr. Maliki has apparently made the risky
calculation that by backing some Shiite militias, even in secret, he can
maintain control over the country’s restive Shiite population and,
ultimately, retain power after the next national elections, which are
scheduled for next year. Militiamen and residents of Shiite areas say
members of Asaib al-Haq are given government badges and weapons and
allowed freedom of movement by the security forces.

How do you miss that? Prashant Rao is the Baghdad Bureau chief for AFP. That job title kind of requires he be aware of every major report on Iraq. The New York Times
is not an obscure publication. Tim Arango is not an unknown name.
This was a major report from an internationally influential outlet. And
Prashant just happened to miss it?

Yeah, he was in Scotland the day the report went online -- but I do
believe Scotland called the internet. He certainly used some device to
Tweet repeatedly while he was in Scotland. Once he was done attending a
wedding, he should have been going over any major western reports from
Iraq while he was in Scotland. It wouldn't have taken that long. It's
CNN, AP, Reuters, AFP, EFE and that's pretty much it. Once a week or
so, there's an article in the New York Times.

If he was ignorant, Prashant wasn't the only one in that boat. One of
the few to Tweet about Arango's article was the New York Times Sebnem
Arsu who isn't very smart:

No, that really wasn't the takeaway. Arsu can read headlines and can
read opening paragraphs but to understand what's important? Oh, hell
no.

What Nouri's doing? The Leahy Amendment demands that US funding cease
immediately to Nouri's government. You cannot hire people to kill the
citizens of the country and get US aid. Now Congress knows little of
Arango's report and there's little chance that they'll take a stand --
everyone knows Nouri is Sammy Power's boy -- but the news, the actual
news of the story, is that Nouri's arming and funding Shi'ite militias
to attack Sunnis.

Besides, the ever weak-ass State Dept just wants taxpayer monies for
Iraq while it works on things like war on Syria. The State Dept has
grown tired of diplomacy and its job so it's looking for new adventures
and to transition into an adjunct of the DoD.

Said Arikat: Iraq?Marie Harf: Uh-huh.Said Arikat: The UN reports that 6,000 Iraqis have died since the
beginning of the year, there has been a tremendous spike in sectarian
violence, incursions by al-Qaida, almost collapse of the central
government. Yet Iraq really seems to be not on your radar screen. Can
you explain to us why this lack of attention to what’s going on in Iraq
on your part?Marie Harf: Well, Said, there are, like, three or four things
that you just said that I would take issue with factually, so let me
walk through some of them. The first is that Iraq very much remains on
our radar screen. It’s
something we’re very engaged in, concerned about, we’ve talked about
repeatedly in this briefing room. The second is that I would take issue
with your notion of how you characterize the violence. We’ve said
repeatedly that this uptick in violence we’ve seen is terrorist
violence. It’s not the kind of sectarian violence we saw during the most
violent years of the Iraq war. So it really is violence perpetrated by
extremists, and much of it is a outflow of the situation in Syria. And
the third, I think, point I would make about what you just said
is that we have actually commended, when Iraqi leaders have come
together, to work together to deprive violent extremists of this issue –
of their – of any opportunities to use words or actions to incite
tension. So we’ve noted, actually, some positive steps of the different
leaders coming together to work on this issue, so I – that’s my third
point of contention I would take with what you just said. But we remain
deeply concerned about it, incredibly concerned about it, and we
continue to call on Iraq’s leaders to work together to thwart it, and
also we will continue working with them to do so.Said Arikat: Is the United States Government taking any special
measures to sort of help Iraq in this really difficult time, especially
in the fight against terrorism – terrorists?Marie Harf: Mm-hmm. Well, we have an ongoing dialogue with them
on the fight against terrorism. We’ve said we will continue to support
them in the best way that we think is possible. And certainly that will
continue, that cooperation will continue.Said Arikat: Why won’t the United States support Iraq with –
let’s say, with drone strikes like it was doing in Yemen and other
places, to strike against places of – locations of terrorists and
terrorist camps?Marie Harf: Well, as we’ve said, we consider the Government of
Iraq an essential partner in this fight. We’ll continue talking with
them on this issue. As you know, under the Strategic Framework
Agreement, we have an ongoing dialogue on counterterrorism cooperation,
but beyond that, I’m just not going to go any further about what that
cooperation looks like.Said Arikat: Okay. But the truth of the matter is that Iraq has
no air asset with which to defend itself, so it must rely on the U.S.
for, let’s say, any kind of aerial assistance in the fight against
terror. Are you – or in the near future, are you planning to aid Iraq in
this realm?Marie Harf: We’re going to keep talking to them about the best
way we can aid them in the fight against terrorists, and beyond that, I
don’t have anything further.

Excuse me?

Marie Harf: The first is that Iraq very much remains on our radar screen. It’s
something we’re very engaged in, concerned about, we’ve talked about
repeatedly in this briefing room.

Was that an attempt at standup?

More importantly, what the hell was this?

Marie Harf: The second is that I would take issue
with your notion of how you characterize the violence. We’ve said
repeatedly that this uptick in violence we’ve seen is terrorist
violence. It’s not the kind of sectarian violence we saw during the most
violent years of the Iraq war. So it really is violence perpetrated by
extremists, and much of it is a outflow of the situation in Syria.

I'm sorry, I didn't know the history could be rewritten at the podium.

2006? What did the State Dept say about 2006 violence? I'm not
referring to the spokesperson, I'm referring the Dept's official report
to Congress. From the report, here's the section on Iraq:

IraqIraq remained at the center of the War on Terror
with the Iraqi Government and the Coalition battling al-Qaida in Iraq
(AQI) and affiliated terrorist organizations, insurgent groups fighting
against Coalition Forces (CF), militias and death squads increasingly
engaged in sectarian violence, and criminal organizations taking
advantage of Iraq's deteriorating security situation. Terrorist
organizations and insurgent groups continued to attack CF primarily
using Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and Vehicle-Borne Improvised
Explosive Devices (VBIEDs). The Iraqi government universally condemned
terrorist groups and supported CF against AQI and its affiliates.
The June 7 death of AQI's leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, damaged
the group's leadership but did not diminish attacks against Coalition
Forces and Iraqis nor did it halt overall increasing attack trends by
the group. AQI's new leader is Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also known as Abu
Hamza al-Muhajir. January press reports indicated that AQI teamed with
several smaller Sunni Islamist groups devoted to continuing the
insurgency calling themselves the Mujahideen Shura Council. By the end
of the year, this group had renamed itself the Islamic State of Iraq. AQ
and affiliated groups continued attacks on Iraq's infrastructure and
claimed responsibility for kidnappings and attacks against Coalition
Forces.
The Government of Iraq sponsored reconciliation programs to
reduce the sources of violence. The government organized conferences
involving tribal and religious leaders, politicians, and civil society
organizations to counter support for terrorist organizations and to
promote dialogue between Iraq's ethnic and religious groups in an effort
to decrease violence. Tribal leaders in Ramadi, a volatile city in
Anbar province, banded together late in the year and pledged to fight
against AQ instead of the coalition. While the tribal leaders' full
effectiveness remained uncertain, this represented an important step.
Iraq's sectarian divide increased dramatically following the
February 22 bombing of the al-Askariyah Mosque, one of the holiest sites
to Shia Muslims, located in Salah ad Din province. While violence
against both CF and Iraqis had increased prior to the bombing, this
event exacerbated sectarian tensions and led to increased violence in
Iraq's ethnically-mixed areas, especially Baghdad. Sectarian attacks,
including car bombs, suicide vests, sniper fire, targeted
assassinations, and death squad murders, occurred on a close-to-daily
basis with Iraqi civilians suffering the majority of causalities. Iraq's
sectarian violence furthered the terrorists' goals by creating
instability and weakening the government.
Neighboring countries, specifically Iran, continued to interfere
in Iraq's internal affairs by allowing, condoning, or in some cases,
actively smuggling weapons, people, materials, and money to terrorist,
insurgent, and militia groups inside Iraq. Iranian agents and
sympathizers utilized an 800-mile long, porous border with limited
security to transport goods, which increasingly included Iranian-made
weapons such as IEDs or their components, which proved effective in
attacks against Coalition Forces.
In recent statements, Iraqi government leaders, including the
Prime Minister, the President and the Foreign Minister, have called on
neighboring countries to stop interfering in Iraq's internal affairs and
to stop supporting elements actively fighting against Iraq's elected
government. Syria's Foreign Minister traveled to Baghdad and agreed to
cooperate more closely on border security in an effort to reduce the
number of foreign fighters entering Iraq. Senior Iraqi officials,
including Iraqi President Talabani, traveled to Iran throughout the year
encouraging the Iranian government to support Iraq's political process
and to stop material support of terrorist groups and militias.
To demonstrate that the Iraqi government does not wish to allow
Iraq to become a safe haven for terrorist organizations, Prime Minister
al-Maliki appointed the Minister of State for National Security, Shirwan
al-Waeli, as the Iraq coordinator for issues involving the Kurdistan
Workers Party (Kongra-Gel/PKK), a designated Foreign Terrorist
Organization. Tension between Turkey and the Iraqi government increased
as Turkish leaders expressed increasing frustration at what they viewed
as Iraq's inaction against the PKK.
Although Iraq is a proven ally in the War on Terror, Iraq's
developing security and armed forces will require further training and
resources before they can effectively address the terrorist groups
already operating within their borders. Iraq's intelligence services
continued to improve in both competency and confidence, but they also
will require additional support before they will be able to adequately
identify and respond to internal and external terrorist threats. The
international community's support for investment and reconstruction are
critical components needed to ensure that the Government of Iraq's plans
to reduce violence, improve services, and increase economic
opportunities are successful.

Now I don't see rebels as "terrorists." But if the State Dept has
changed its position and it no longer sees rebels as terrorists, it
needs to come forward with a public announcement. And clearly, ethnic
cleansing and State Dept defined "terrorism" both took place in 2006
(and in 2007 but we don't have the room to quote the Dept's report on
2007's violence).

Marie Harf needs to be asked if the State Dept is today walking away
from its 2006 report -- which was the work of career employees, not
political appointees?

She was also asked about Nouri's visit this month? He was supposed to
visit last month. A disagreement made the visit iffy. Today, Harf
declared of the reported visit this month, "I saw those reports. We
don’t have anything to
announce at this point about a visit by Prime Minister Maliki. When we
do, I’ll let you guys know."

I have no idea why she made such an idiotic comment. This has been
widely reported in the Iraqi press. 'Doesn't make it so!' Possibly.
But what they're reporting on is the official statement issued by Nouri
al-Maliki's office. For example, here's Aswat al-Iraq reporting on the news Sunday:

It
was officially announced today that Premier Nouri al-Maliki will visit
Washington, on 28 October, to discuss the security situation in Iraq,
the Syrian crisis and the issues related to the Strategic Framework
agreement.

Media advisor Ali al-Mussawi stated that Maliki will head a high ranking delegation.

Iraqi initiative to solve the Syrian question shall among the talks.

The initiative called for peaceful solution and immediate ceasefire.

He denied the news that US President Barack Obama refuse to meet Maliki, stressing that the visit shall be official.

Again, Nouri's office has announced the visit. Did so on Sunday. I
have no idea why Marie Harf is denying it and claiming she has no
information on it. Clearly, if Nouri's office made a false announcement
on Sunday, by Wednesday, the US government would know so and have an
answer or response.

Political
Undersecretary General of the Arab League Fadel Jawad said on Monday
that: "The Arab League denounces the violence, terrorism and killing of
innocents, whatever the context is."Jawad noted that this issue does not affect only those states, but
also the safety and interests of their citizens, including their
economic situations.

Yesterday,,
Saad Zaghloul was shot dead outside his Mosul home. He was the
spokesperson for the governor of Nineveh Province. Nineveh Governor
Atheel al-Nujaifi is also the brother of Osama al-Nujaifi. They are
Sunnis and members of Iraqiya. All Iraq News reported
yesterday that Iraqiya MP Mohammed Eqbal called for the culprit or culprits to be
arrested "and present[ed] . . . to judiciary. The indulging [of] this
issue by the security forces allows the criminal to commit more crimes
against the Iraqis." MP Eqbal also expressed, "His sorrow for the
continuity of the assassination attempts to the journalists and
activists in Nineveh."

Through yesterday, the 8th day of the month, Iraq Body Count counts 303 violent deaths in Iraq so far this month.

A UN report
this month found that, 'Torture and brutality are rife in Libyan
prisons two years after the overthrow of leader Muammar Gaddafi.' Around
8,000 prisoners are currently being held without trial in government
jails on suspicion of having fought for Gaddafi.
But then, in the aftermath of Nato's 'humanitarian intervention', torture, bombings and assassinations are now par for the course in Libya, as described here by the excellent Interventions Watch.
In similar vein, late last month,
thirteen bombs were detonated on a single day in Baghdad killing at
least 47 people. More than 5,000 people have been killed so far this
year, according to the UN.

Despite all of this - after years of unmissable, terrible carnage in
Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - the Pew Research Journalism Project finds
that 'the No. 1 message' on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, and Al Jazeera,
was 'that the U.S. should get involved in the conflict' in Syria.
It seems that no level of suffering and chaos are sufficient to impede
the structural 'mainstream' inclination to support state violence.
No surprise, then, that much of UK journalism had decided that the
current Official Enemy was responsible for the August 21 attacks in
Damascus long before the UN published the evidence in its report on 'the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Ghouta area' on September 16.
Just one day after the attacks, a Guardian leader claimed there was not 'much doubt' who was to blame, as it simultaneously assailed
its readers with commentary on the West's 'responsibility to protect'.
An Independent front page headline one week later read like a sigh of
relief: 'Syria: air attacks loom as West finally acts' (Independent,
August 26, 2013).
This was a close copy of the media response to the May 2012 massacre in Houla, which was also instantly and personally blamed on Syrian president Assad.The rapid media conclusion on Ghouta was particularly striking because
the issues are complex – literally, rocket science - and evidence has
again been gathered under live fire in the middle of a notoriously
ferocious civil, proxy and propaganda war. Earlier claims relating to use of chemical weapons had been adjudged
'a load of old cobblers' by veteran journalist Robert Fisk. It was also
clear that instantly declaring Assad's guilt a 'slam-dunk' fed directly
into a rapidly escalating US-UK propaganda blitz intended to justify a
massive, illegal attack on Syria without UN approval.